The concept of "Presumed Innocent"

[Robovski]

I'd like to give a reminder on the concept of the presumption of innocence.
1. The Presumption of Innocence refers to how we do criminal trials.
2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.
3. Accusing somebody of a crime is not going against the presumption of innocence.
4. Investigating somebody for a possible crime is not violating the presumption of innocence.

The authoritarian left and your rights, ladies and gentlemen.

[Yukaphile]

I'll raise you the Nazis. But don't wanna devolve to forum logic here. Trump is obviously very corrupt with finances. He hasn't released his tax returns, for example. As President, we should demand he do so. And hell, I'd go a step farther and claim we should demand Sanders turn his in too. He's one of those "dirty leftists" you dislike so much. As for Kavanaugh... I mean, nuff said. I think he's guilty. He makes women wear dresses who work for him. He thinks a birth control pill is an abortion pill. And he tried to delay a legally granted abortion so it would pass the deadline and the poor woman would be forced to carry to term. You can't see someone like that raping somebody? Especially if he's rip roaring drunk. When I think "1950s religious conservative" the way that most white male Republicans are, I think a guy who gets drunk, comes home, beats up his wife, and then possibly rapes her, while the authorities do nothing. I see a fantasy that never was. 1950s housewives were NOT June Cleaver. It was a very terrible time and that's what they're trying to take us back to. The only good thing was the economy - and they wanna kill that too. They've wanted to destroy the New Deal ever since FDR.

[Antiboyscout]

2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.

And to the punishing of a crime.

If we tie a man to a tree and flog him, I don't think we can justify it by saying "Well, sure, we beat the crap out of him, but we didn't convict him, so we cool."

Right.

And investigation, interviews for a position of power, etc. are all not punishments for crime, but part of the process of determining guilt.

There is a thing called reasonable search and seizure.

Calling someone's boss telling them to fire someone because they are a racist NAZI KKK member with no evidence is what this leads to. Kinda what happened to Kavanaugh actually. Get with the times man. Extrajudicial punishments done through the "Free Market" is the current way. It's ok if it's a private business and the punishment isn't something a court would sentence.

So it's ok for the government to spy on you 24/7. I mean if you have nothing to hide...

[Antiboyscout]

The only good thing was the economy - and they wanna kill that too. They've wanted to destroy the New Deal ever since FDR.

If you think the New Deal caused the 1950's boom then you don't understand economics... or geopolitics... or much at all I'm guessing.

[Yukaphile]

Kavanaugh tried to delay a legally granted procedure for political reasons, make some poor woman give birth to an unwanted baby against her will. That takes a callous disregard for women's rights. And it's not like the GOP has the best track record on women's rights in the first place with people like Todd Akin talking about "legitimate rape" and Richard Mourdock claiming God sends a rapist to get a woman pregnant. Or who was that guy that said "some girls, they rape so easy?" I could see a man like that doing it. True, no evidence. So why not take it to court? I'd love to do so. I'm sure they'd find the DNA evidence they need, though obviously his victims don't wanna be anywhere near him.

Who here is saying it's okay for the government to spy on you 24/7? When Trump refused to release his tax returns, it's clear he was hiding something. Same with Sanders. The only opponent in that race who released thirty years of tax returns was Clinton. But then, she opted for total transparency.

And yeah. It was WWII. We literally profited off that war. But those social programs helped. And look at the end of the 1990s. We still had a balanced budget, a surplus, and a great economy - without having to lose those social programs. I'm not willing to give them up just so those rich fat pigs in the GOP can keep stealing money from the poor to give to the uber wealthy who can buy the world ten times over already.

[Antiboyscout]

Kavanaugh tried to delay a legally granted procedure for political reasons, make some poor woman give birth to an unwanted baby against her will. That takes a callous disregard for women's rights. And it's not like the GOP has the best track record on women's rights in the first place with people like Todd Akin talking about "legitimate rape" and Richard Mourdock claiming God sends a rapist to get a woman pregnant. Or who was that guy that said "some girls, they rape so easy?" I could see a man like that doing it. True, no evidence. So why not take it to court? I'd love to do so. I'm sure they'd find the DNA evidence they need, though obviously his victims don't wanna be anywhere near him.

Who here is saying it's okay for the government to spy on you 24/7? When Trump refused to release his tax returns, it's clear he was hiding something. Same with Sanders. The only opponent in that race who released thirty years of tax returns was Clinton. But then, she opted for total transparency.

And yeah. It was WWII. We literally profited off that war. But those social programs helped. And look at the end of the 1990s. We still had a balanced budget, a surplus, and a great economy - without having to lose those social programs. I'm not willing to give them up just so those rich fat pigs in the GOP can keep stealing money from the poor to give to the uber wealthy who can buy the world ten times over already.

You're arguing past the point. You presume that abortion is a right at all.

Take it up with Fuzzy. I'm not the one implying that all investigations are legitimate and presumed innocence does not protect you from them.

Still wrong, being the last man standing post war was what caused the boom. 1950's to 1990's you seem to have skipped a rather important era there. I know you want to forget stagflation and how Regan's deregulation solved it and skip right to Clinton riding the wave of the dotcom bubble but you can't.

[Yukaphile]

It points to that primitive view these men who have no connection to these women have. That they shouldn't have consensual sex and enjoy it, that they have no right to exercise control over their own bodies, that we men know what's best for them. It's not too far removed from "no" eventually becomes "yes," that you just gotta find the angle.

Okay.

Okay, so Saint Reagan is your hero? Reaganomics doesn't work. You cut taxes to give money to the super rich, they'll invest in machines, not workers. And without workers buying products, prices go up. When prices go up, people can't buy things, so the economy does poorly. And hell, we got off lightly. Margaret Thatcher and Boris Yeltsin embraced Reaganomics and it tanked their economies. It will do so here too eventually. FOUR MILLION PEOPLE died from famine in Russia. One of them could have been my friend, Aleksey, who thankfully moved here in the early nineties. You want that to be us. And hey, Reagan wasn't President to give us a balanced budget. That's eight years of a Democrat, bub. Don't dismiss it so easily. If anything, I think the end of the Cold War gave us more confidence, which Reagan helped set in motion, but then Clinton carried out the rest of it.

[Worffan101]

I'd like to give a reminder on the concept of the presumption of innocence.
1. The Presumption of Innocence refers to how we do criminal trials.
2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.
3. Accusing somebody of a crime is not going against the presumption of innocence.
4. Investigating somebody for a possible crime is not violating the presumption of innocence.

The authoritarian left and your rights, ladies and gentlemen.

Seriously?

That's not authoritarian at all. Investigating allegations of sex crimes IS a completely valid thing to do. Thoroughly investigating allegations and even making said allegations is part and parcel of how our criminal justice system works.

Whether the alleged misconduct/criminal behavior is relevant to a particular situation varies (for example, Bob Menendez should be thrown out, but a congresscritter who cheats on his terminally-ill wife TECHNICALLY isn't committing a crime (just being a total asshole)), but generally speaking we should be extra careful to not put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Just saying.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'd like to give a reminder on the concept of the presumption of innocence.
1. The Presumption of Innocence refers to how we do criminal trials.
2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.
3. Accusing somebody of a crime is not going against the presumption of innocence.
4. Investigating somebody for a possible crime is not violating the presumption of innocence.

The authoritarian left and your rights, ladies and gentlemen.

...due process and investigation is not authoritarianism.

[Admiral X]

Making excuses for why people should be treated like criminals based solely on an accusation is pretty authoritarian, though. The fan film Troops joked about that, for crying out loud, because the Empire was just that horrible that their idea of justice would be "All suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?" Yet some people just seem to unironically think that way.